Evidence from UK's National Crime Agency 'critical' in sentencing Koh Tao killers to death

[jayjay78]

Here is Mr Holmes talking about the hair

And here's what you claim he said

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

RH was confirming what was said at court, and as with other dna samples now gone so this cannot be checked, you also forget to add what else RH said and what many people think along with RH that this could well have been a planted hair.

Little advice for you, when quoting someone in future provide a link or screenshot otherwise putting words in peoples mouths or out of context can be construed as liable

[StealthEnergiser]

Here is Mr Holmes talking about the hair

Now the police wouldn't lie under oath would they ?

In court today, one of the main police investigators, Lieutenant Colonel Somsak Nurod, said he had spoken to the police pathologist on the 2nd and 3rd of October, at the same time as the defendants were arrested and two weeks after the autopsies, but otherwise he had no further contact with him.

However, the defence lawyers representing the two Myanmar workers produced a statement from the pathologist, stating that Lt Col Nurod had made two separate trips to meet with him in Bangkok in late October, and again on the November 18 after both defendants had retracted their confessions.

The pathologist’s statement said that the meetings had included discussion on the hair found in Ms Witheridge’s hand.

When challenged in court, Lt Col Nurod admitted that further discussion about the hair strand had indeed taken place, but he did not reveal exactly what was said.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/senior_police_officers_give_contradictory_evidence_at_hannah_witheridge_murder_trial_1_4215995?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

[DiscoDan]

Here is Mr Holmes talking about the hair

And here's what you claim he said

Another lie that was told was the blonde hair was never tested.

Robert Holmes confirmed it was tested but it was a fallen hair to get a dna sample it has to be pulled out, and as Hannah's UK autopsy showed no sign of resistance this would of confirmed it was unlikely someone pulled it out in the attack.

RH was confirming what was said at court, and as with other dna samples now gone so this cannot be checked, you also forget to add what else RH said and what many people think along with RH that this could well have been a planted hair.

Little advice for you, when quoting someone in future provide a link or screenshot otherwise putting words in peoples mouths or out of context can be construed as liable

He was in the court and he witnessed what was said and he confirmed that with his comment on FB

And how much proof is there of the hair being planted ? Zero.

[jayjay78]

He was in the court and he witnessed what was said and he confirmed that with his comment on FB

And how much proof is there of the hair being planted ? Zero.

I'm aware of who RH is and that he was in court for a few days. I'm also aware that they were able to test the hair to confirm it did not belong to Hannah, David or Chris Ware, so logically they would be able to test against other people also if they had the inclination to do so which obviously they did not, and as the hair has now gone who knows who it belonged to whether planted or from the real killer.

[lucky11]

.........and how does "seeing what you see" help the B2? Isn't that the job of the 'rather more important to them than you' defence team?

[greenchair]

claim and counter claim over the phone , likewise the DNA , and yet Nomsod and his family remain in the frame for the majority of ppl here . Go figure . Must be quite frustrating

Quite possibly, but without incriminating evidence...yes, quite frustrating.

I think the 'entente' on the beach was witnessed by the two young convicted men, possibly including themselves to free deserts....the rest was easy. Probables exempted, possibles inserted, cash for secrets sorted, job done...

The court, at the moment, holds all the aces...

...go figure!

In one sentence you say,

Yes, it is highly probable they were there.

It is also probable that they took part in the "activities ".

Then make a smart remark as if the court was not doing its job in some way.

[AleG]

"The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware."

No, that's what the completely useless "Internet Sleuths" came up with to try to explain reality away. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there."

Except that both Wei Phyo and his friend Ren Ren have already testified how that phone ended up there on the morning after the murders. It's just amazing how some people keep throwing BS on the face of established facts.

This is Wei Phyo's own testimony on the final days of the trial, obviously he had every motivation to spin things as much in favour as he could and still he is not denying that he handed that phone to his friend who then threw it away were it was subsequently found:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Rens house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendants house and returned to Mr Ren Rens house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

Not clear enough?

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendants witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact.

Furthermore there is corroborating testimony that the Second Defendant did in fact take the mobile phone to Mr Ren Ren, witness for the Plaintiff, but the Second Defendant merely argued that the the phone was found on the ground on the way to Mr Mau Maus house and that the Second Defendant merely wanted to show it off to his friend."

The phone used as evidence is David Miller's phone, which Wei Phyo says he "found" on the night of the murder, it's indisputable; the suspect confirmed it's the same phone he "found" on that night, his friend confirmed it, the UK NCA and the Miller family confirmed it was David's phone, this is all indisputable.

The only thing being demonstrated by trying to dispute the indisputable is to what lengths of denial and deception the people that want to believe they weren't wrong in believing those two men committed the murders are willing to go.

I'm not sure what this verbose pile of garbage is supposed to 'prove', other than that Wei Phyo found a phone that he gave to a friend, and that the RTP presented a phone in court that they said was David's and the one that Wei Phyo found. Hmmm.....apart from the obvious: the RTP were prone to telling lots of lies in court.....the phone that RTP forensics recovered from the trees doesn't look anything like an iphone 4s (the model that David owned, and the model of phone that was found in David's bag). But it does look exactly like an iphone 3G. It's pretty obvious that the RTP have been swapping phone evidence about.

There was no phone in Miller's luggage, that's just you and the Truthers doing what they do best, conflating things to confuse yourselves into believing things don't add up.

The phone smashed and discarded by WP's friend and presented as evidence is obviously an iPhone4, as can be clearly be seen in the photos in post #330

[boomerangutang]

So, if the judge says cows don't eat grass, are you going to echo that as irrefutable truth?

You can choose to quote the judge as if it's gospel, but most of the rest of us make up our own minds about what's right and wrong.

I know we should tread carefully when mentioning a Thai judge, so I'll redirect my focus on the RTP and prosecution: If Hanna's clothes are missing, we (seekers of truth and justice) will say they're missing. If authorities don't mention or comment on that, it doesn't mean that Hanna's clothes have reappeared. If prosecution doesn't mention the fact that a bottle was shown to be at the crime scene, does that mean a bottle wasn't at the crime scene?

Sometimes it's the things which are left unsaid that are as pertinent to solving the crime as things which are said. In this crime, there are hundreds of clues which were not mentioned in court. Does that mean none of those things ever existed? Does that mean none of those things are relevant to solving the case? No, it was all part of RTP's, Headman's and prosecution's plan to shield the most likely perps from any scrutiny.

A partial list of clues which were not mentioned at the trial, so we assume the judge didn't hear or know about them. . . . . .

>>> phone records,

>>> bottle, Hannah's clothes (including undies), white shorts, phone found at crime scene

>>> Nok Airways manifest/CCTV, records from phone companies re; call histories

>>> places near crime scene where laundry gets done, including sinks

>>> Mon's room, Nomsod's room (were they even checked forensically?)

>>> transfer of money or valuables from people connected to the headman - to top brass officials.

>>> recordings of transcripts of interrogations with Mon. .....with interrogations at 'safe house.'

>>> 59.9 hours of CCTV

.....the list goes on and on.....

Did the defence team bring any of this up? Surely, if these things were crucial to the case then why didn't they bring it to the attention of the judge instead of using the gait analysis fiasco that seems to prove nothing and then having to pass on their 'killer' DNA evidence mishandling aspect once they had established that it didn't help their cause because the prosecutions use of the DNA evidence 'trumped' everything else.

It's not the defense's responsibility to solve the crime. That's RTP's responsibility. RTP positioned themselves as the ONLY investigators. Not one private eye was allowed to look at or gather the evidence. Also; Defense had a limited time frame, half the days which were give the prosecution. And defense team didn't want to offend or anger the subjective court by bringing up topics which didn't directly affect the accused. Note: the judge, after delaying for months a decision whether to allow defense to re-test crucial data, finally agreed BUT VERY TIGHTLY RESTRICTED WHAT COULD BE LOOKED AT. Similarly, though not articulated, the court made it known what topics were not to be delved into. Top of the list was anyone connected to the Headman. If defense started doing the RTP's job of trying to solve the crime by following where evidence/clues led to, the defense would have been thwarted by all the government-paid entities stacked against them. Get real, dude. And gait analysis: it was only used to look at the B2, and didn't match. It was not used to look at Nomsod (who is Running Man) because, again, the court didn't want to open any Pandora's Box which would shed light on who really did the crime.

>>> Nomsod phone records were produced in court.

>>>Everything found at a crime scene does not have to be produced in court, just what the prosecution needs to make a case.

>>>Nok airways don't fly from Samui its a private airport

>>>This has to be one of the most stupid parts of the conspiracy that the murderer went and washed & dried clothes and replaced them.

>>>They were cleared as suspects no need to check.

>>>Again cleared as suspects

>>>Again cleared as suspects they are not the ones on trial

>>>cctv at the pier was checked

you can send the rest of the list when you are ready.

Only a brief mention of NS's phone used in Bkk on Monday morning. No mention of time. If it was after 9 am, it doesn't mean squat, because a desperate man in a hurry can get from the island to Bkk via Nok Air in less than 4 hours.

No one says it had to be a flight from Samui. There are Nok flights from Chompun. One of those flights would fit perfectly for NS to flee the scene. Was that flight checked? No, of course not. It's only one of hundreds of basic things RTP didn't do. Or if they did do it, they (and the Headman) didn't like what they saw,. so they squelched the data.

Murderers absolutely wash clothes after crimes. They also wash bodies and anything else soiled by bodily fluids. Alternatively, they trash. burn or bury clothes after crimes. RTP looked into none of that. We know why.

Just because you and the RTP and the headman have an agenda to clear certain suspects, doesn't mean they are innocent.

CCTV at pier was not checked. Investigating cop said they didn't look at it because, in his words, "...didn't think it was important."

Dan, are you purposefully lying or are you just grossly uninformed? It's one or the other, ....or both.

[AleG]

Anyway, getting things back ontopic:

post-222787-0-30404400-1455972209.jpgpost-222787-0-26553800-1455973302.jpg

Phone found behind the Burmese residences. Note the thick silver frame around the front, and the curved back cover.

iphone3g-review1-3.jpg

iphone3g. Note the same thick silver frame around the front, and the same curved back cover.

black-4s-450x338.jpg

iphone 4s. Note the thin silver frame around the side, and the flat back cover.

The "thick silver frame around the front" is the internal metal frame of the phone.

[catsanddogs]

"The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware."

No, that's what the completely useless "Internet Sleuths" came up with to try to explain reality away. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there."

Except that both Wei Phyo and his friend Ren Ren have already testified how that phone ended up there on the morning after the murders. It's just amazing how some people keep throwing BS on the face of established facts.

This is Wei Phyo's own testimony on the final days of the trial, obviously he had every motivation to spin things as much in favour as he could and still he is not denying that he handed that phone to his friend who then threw it away were it was subsequently found:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Rens house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendants house and returned to Mr Ren Rens house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

Not clear enough?

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendants witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact.

Furthermore there is corroborating testimony that the Second Defendant did in fact take the mobile phone to Mr Ren Ren, witness for the Plaintiff, but the Second Defendant merely argued that the the phone was found on the ground on the way to Mr Mau Maus house and that the Second Defendant merely wanted to show it off to his friend."

The phone used as evidence is David Miller's phone, which Wei Phyo says he "found" on the night of the murder, it's indisputable; the suspect confirmed it's the same phone he "found" on that night, his friend confirmed it, the UK NCA and the Miller family confirmed it was David's phone, this is all indisputable.

The only thing being demonstrated by trying to dispute the indisputable is to what lengths of denial and deception the people that want to believe they weren't wrong in believing those two men committed the murders are willing to go.

I'm not sure what this verbose pile of garbage is supposed to 'prove', other than that Wei Phyo found a phone that he gave to a friend, and that the RTP presented a phone in court that they said was David's and the one that Wei Phyo found. Hmmm.....apart from the obvious: the RTP were prone to telling lots of lies in court.....the phone that RTP forensics recovered from the trees doesn't look anything like an iphone 4s (the model that David owned, and the model of phone that was found in David's bag). But it does look exactly like an iphone 3G. It's pretty obvious that the RTP have been swapping phone evidence about.

There was no phone in Miller's luggage, that's just you and the Truthers doing what they do best, conflating things to confuse yourselves into believing things don't add up.

The phone smashed and discarded by WP's friend and presented as evidence is obviously an iPhone4, as can be clearly be seen in the photos in post #330

AleG - could you please confirm for me whether you are referring to yourself in your post where it reads

'my note here'.

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident.

[Khun Han]

No, the phone recovered, as shown in the photos in my post #448, is clearly not an iphone 4s. The phone you are referring to is clearly not the phone recovered. It's clearly a different phone introduced by the RTP as yet more jiggery pokery to make the 'evidence' fit their story. Unfortunately for them the evidence of the iphone 3g that they found behind the Burmese residences is now in the public domain.

[AleG]

It's been pretty much confirmed that serous discrepancies in the phone evidence have been unearthed in these recent discussions, by the sudden, sustained onslaught of misdirection by the shills, including daft attempts to provoke argument about all sorts of other things. The shills need a new team leader: their tactics are transparent. Anyway, good to have them confirm that those of us seeking truth and justice are on the right track.

You have not found anything WP & RR admitted along time ago the phone in the bag was the one they found Brit evidence could not be used so Miller family gave the evidence from Davids computer.

P.S petty name calling just shows you are losing the argument

I'd say the need to resort to a stream of easily disproved and/or unsubstantiated BS shows that even better.

[AleG]

Trouble is, there wasn't any DNA evidence. Oh, unless you believe the RTP's claim that there was. Hey, it was all written down on a piece of paper, with alterations and crossing outs. Must be true.

I refer you to Smedly's posts (including the rationale not acceptable by the defence) where he quite clearly states what evidence should have been presented to court to make it admissible. And had the B2 been guilty, I have no doubt the RTP would have provided such evidence that could be verified, substantiated, and validated. As it was not, I have little doubt that the B2 were not the culprits, but convenient scapegoats.

I have my own theories regarding what was not questioned by the defence, but as that goes into Thai psyche, and beyond, this is not the forum to discuss such matters.

There is evidence its in the rape kit that the defense declined to retest.

Evidence??? I repeat. READ Smedly's posts where the DNA profile offered by the prosecution was not acceptable. Stop trying to mislead yet again - it's all been explained many times. I'll give you a clue. The offer was not the original samples (if they ever existed, which is debatable) - do you get it now?

Like yourself, neither the court, prosecution, or defence understood what DNA evidence is acceptable by any court of law. Face-saving comes into play, here. Hopefully, the defence appeal (assisted by international DNA experts) will enlighten the appeal judges, although I doubt it would enlighten you..

The only person saying that the "offer" was not original samples is Smedly, who has systematically refused to substantiate his claim. Obviously unsubstantiated claims are just fine by you.

The defence had been requesting these samples since April last year, (confirmed by the judge at the July hearing) but the RTP declined to produce anything despite a court order that the defence should be permitted to test them. And if you think I'm going to plow back countless posts to satisfy your ignorance, you're mistaken. So do the search your self, Tony, instead of making spurious and inaccurate comments.

The court issued an order so that the defense could do the retesting, the defense declined because the results would had been sent to the police and the court whether the defense wanted it or not, like they didn't release the results of the DNA retest they did of WP and ZL.

[Khun Han]

Anyway, getting things back ontopic:

post-222787-0-30404400-1455972209.jpgpost-222787-0-26553800-1455973302.jpg

Phone found behind the Burmese residences. Note the thick silver frame around the front, and the curved back cover.

iphone3g-review1-3.jpg

iphone3g. Note the same thick silver frame around the front, and the same curved back cover.

black-4s-450x338.jpg

iphone 4s. Note the thin silver frame around the side, and the flat back cover.

The "thick silver frame around the front" is the internal metal frame of the phone.

Which internal metal frame is that? The iphone 4s case is made from glass. The thin metal band around it's edge is just an antenna.

[jayjay78]

The court issued an order so that the defense could do the retesting, the defense declined because the results would had been sent to the police and the court whether the defense wanted it or not, like they didn't release the results of the DNA retest they did of WP and ZL.

Would you drink from the 'poisoned chalice' if you did not know its source?

[Lancashireman]

claim and counter claim over the phone , likewise the DNA , and yet Nomsod and his family remain in the frame for the majority of ppl here . Go figure . Must be quite frustrating

Quite possibly, but without incriminating evidence...yes, quite frustrating.

I think the 'entente' on the beach was witnessed by the two young convicted men, possibly including themselves to free deserts....the rest was easy. Probables exempted, possibles inserted, cash for secrets sorted, job done...

The court, at the moment, holds all the aces...

...go figure!

In one sentence you say,

Yes, it is highly probable they were there.

It is also probable that they took part in the "activities ".

Then make a smart remark as if the court was not doing its job in some way.

On the contrary, greenchair, the court did process what it was offered. It's all the other external influences that directed where this case was to go.

The court hasn't finished yet...by a long way.

[AleG]

Why wasn't the B2's DNA on the murder weapon that ONE person died from........Why is there no mention of Dave's injuries which had nothing to do with the hoe....?

It seems there are three folk here that have the answers......Pray tell....

And presumably no DNA from nomsod on the hoe? Or Mon. Or shark-tooth man. Or any of the island mafia gang? In fact no positive, concrete evidence whatsoever has connect any of the island mafia to the murders.

If there is hard, indisputable evidence I'd likevto know what it is.

The "Indisputable evidence" is that some people think the man running in the CCTV footage of the main suspect is the son of one of the island's big cheese. All the rest of the "evidence" is speculation built around that premise.

Of course that necessitates to ignore the obvious similarity with one of the Burmese men found guilty:

Also ignore that man admitted (as part of his alibi) that he was in that area at that time, walking around barefoot and shirtless... as the man in the footage.

As I pointed out before, this beheaviour reminds me of an argument against a religious zealot I listened to some time ago:

"your (mind) is blinded by faith and a doctrinal obligation to defend the sacred fables against all reason. That's what apologetics is all about, you assume your conclusions at the onset for reasons that have nothing to do with actual information and then you make up whatever excuse necessary to rationalize or justify your baseless assumptions regardless of what the facts are."

[StealthEnergiser]

No, the phone recovered, as shown in the photos in my post #448, is clearly not an iphone 4s. The phone you are referring to is clearly not the phone recovered. It's clearly a different phone introduced by the RTP as yet more jiggery pokery to make the 'evidence' fit their story. Unfortunately for them the evidence of the iphone 3g that they found behind the Burmese residences is now in the public domain.

Good find Khun Han I am looking forward to AleGs reply of why the police tried to pass off a 3G as a 4s.

[AleG]

To the overly nested post above about the Defense getting ready to submit an Appeal:

I remember after the OJ Simpson verdict was announced, that a top LA Police rep was asked, now the OJ had been acquitted, are they going to go after the 'real killer'? The officer flatly replied: "No - we got our man."

So if it should transpire that the Appeals Court reached a decision to reverse the Samui Court's guilty verdict, the Court might also strongly state that they were not making any decision as to whether the 2 Burmese convicted actually did or were accessories to the crimes, just that the Prosecution had not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

The RTP Thai Police might at that point say, as did the LA Police, that we don't agree with that decision, but we believe we have found the real killers and that no further investigation is warranted or will be performed to find others that might be responsible.

On the other hand, the people defending those two have already said that they want to get them free, whether they did it or not:

“They should be released,” he said. “That is not to say they are guilty or not guilty, but the case against them is not strong.”

[metisdead]

Removed a post (and responses) that claimed others were paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. If it's just a lame debating tactic, further references like that may find you without posting rights.

Posting content from Bangkok Post is not allowed as per this forum rule:

26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.

[lucky11]

To the overly nested post above about the Defense getting ready to submit an Appeal:

I remember after the OJ Simpson verdict was announced, that a top LA Police rep was asked, now the OJ had been acquitted, are they going to go after the 'real killer'? The officer flatly replied: "No - we got our man."

So if it should transpire that the Appeals Court reached a decision to reverse the Samui Court's guilty verdict, the Court might also strongly state that they were not making any decision as to whether the 2 Burmese convicted actually did or were accessories to the crimes, just that the Prosecution had not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

The RTP Thai Police might at that point say, as did the LA Police, that we don't agree with that decision, but we believe we have found the real killers and that no further investigation is warranted or will be performed to find others that might be responsible.

On the other hand, the people defending those two have already said that they want to get them free, whether they did it or not:

“They should be released,” he said. “That is not to say they are guilty or not guilty, but the case against them is not strong.”

So, justice doesn't come into it - it appears to be a mission to get them released no matter whether they committed this crime or not with success being regarded purely on achieving this outcome, no matter how it is obtained, even if it is on technicalities in the process or loopholes in the laws!!

It appears that obtaining their release is the sole aim of the game and everything else is peripheral to this. In other words, they would be happy to get them off the hook (even if they suspected their guilt in the crime)!! How can they live with their consciences? I know that I couldn't.

[catsanddogs]

Ok found another and this is the caption that goes with it

"This is David'd iPhone. According to the police Mr. Win stole it, smashed it and threw it to the jungle behind Mr. Mao Mao's resident.

If you observe this iPhone carefully, it looks like somebody tried to open the screen rather than smashing it. It also looks like somebody put this phone under the water or suffer from water damage."

Looking at this photo again it does not look like those two pieces would fit together. The base part appears much longer and thinner as an iphone 4 might look but the piece on the right looks too wide and short to be fit it. The piece on the right of the photo looks more as though it would fit the phone in the bag.

[catsanddogs]

Removed a post (and responses) that claimed others were paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. If it's just a lame debating tactic, further references like that may find you without posting rights.

Posting content from Bangkok Post is not allowed as per this forum rule:

26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.

Apologies.

[StealthEnergiser]

This video shows damaged iPhones a6 6.36

[boomerangutang]

The defence had been requesting these samples since April last year, (confirmed by the judge at the July hearing) but the RTP declined to produce anything despite a court order that the defence should be permitted to test them. And if you think I'm going to plow back countless posts to satisfy your ignorance, you're mistaken. So do the search your self, Tony, instead of making spurious and inaccurate comments.

The court issued an order so that the defense could do the retesting, the defense declined because the results would had been sent to the police and the court whether the defense wanted it or not, like they didn't release the results of the DNA retest they did of WP and ZL.

The poison chalice remark, above, said it more poetically than I, but in the same vein, here we go again:

The main reasons the defense didn't want to re-test the oft-delayed offering of DNA material are as follows:

>>>> The items had been kept by, and were being offered by the same RTP which had proven to lie about (and skew) the evidence, numerous times.

>>>> The judge put a very tight lid on what could be tested. There were many items which the judge would not allow to be tested.

>>>> RTP could not provide any original samples, only sequenced samples of questionable veracity.

>>>> RTP lost some crucial DNA-related evidence, in spite of then-head cop Somyot declaring, "nothing has been lost." Somyot is to lying what a guppy is to mud.

Somyot also appears to have gotten a very large bunch of money might after he took control of the investigation - at about the time everyone connected to the headman were permanently excused from scrutiny, never to be mentioned again in relation to the crime. At about the same time the B3 were nabbed, taken to the safe house, with a lawyer who didn't identify himself, and of course, no recordings or transcripts exist re; what was said within.

[StealthEnergiser]

2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware

[AleG]

"The police had the phone, it was confirmed to be David's phone by Mr Ware."

No, that's what the completely useless "Internet Sleuths" came up with to try to explain reality away. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"I doubt the B2 stole it from the police, so if it (that same phone) ended up in the bushes in a bag, it was the police that put it there."

Except that both Wei Phyo and his friend Ren Ren have already testified how that phone ended up there on the morning after the murders. It's just amazing how some people keep throwing BS on the face of established facts.

This is Wei Phyo's own testimony on the final days of the trial, obviously he had every motivation to spin things as much in favour as he could and still he is not denying that he handed that phone to his friend who then threw it away were it was subsequently found:

"At about 8 am, the Second Defendant showed Mr Ren Ren the mobile phone he had retrieved and told him that he had found it at the restaurant. The Second Defendant tried to turn the mobile phone on but he could not because he did not have the passcode. Then, he left the mobile phone to be recharged at Mr Ren Rens house. After the murder news in Koh Tao spread, the Second Defendant told the truth to Mr Ren Ren that he found the mobile phone near where the incident had happened. Then, the Second Defendant slept over at the First Defendants house and returned to Mr Ren Rens house again to ask about the phone. Mr Ren Ren said he had smashed and destroyed the phone and thrown it away because he did not want to be implicated in the crime. The Second Defendant was disinterested and did not ask further."

Not clear enough?

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident. Neither of these witnesses for the Plaintiff had any reason to be biased against the Second Defendant that would have caused them to incriminate the Second Defendant. Plaintiff also presented evidence relating to the examination of the exhibited mobile phone that can prove that the identification number of the mobile phone was definitely the number of the mobile phone of the First Deceased. In the course of the Second Defendants witness examination there is no supporting evidence to refute this fact.

Furthermore there is corroborating testimony that the Second Defendant did in fact take the mobile phone to Mr Ren Ren, witness for the Plaintiff, but the Second Defendant merely argued that the the phone was found on the ground on the way to Mr Mau Maus house and that the Second Defendant merely wanted to show it off to his friend."

The phone used as evidence is David Miller's phone, which Wei Phyo says he "found" on the night of the murder, it's indisputable; the suspect confirmed it's the same phone he "found" on that night, his friend confirmed it, the UK NCA and the Miller family confirmed it was David's phone, this is all indisputable.

The only thing being demonstrated by trying to dispute the indisputable is to what lengths of denial and deception the people that want to believe they weren't wrong in believing those two men committed the murders are willing to go.

I'm not sure what this verbose pile of garbage is supposed to 'prove', other than that Wei Phyo found a phone that he gave to a friend, and that the RTP presented a phone in court that they said was David's and the one that Wei Phyo found. Hmmm.....apart from the obvious: the RTP were prone to telling lots of lies in court.....the phone that RTP forensics recovered from the trees doesn't look anything like an iphone 4s (the model that David owned, and the model of phone that was found in David's bag). But it does look exactly like an iphone 3G. It's pretty obvious that the RTP have been swapping phone evidence about.

There was no phone in Miller's luggage, that's just you and the Truthers doing what they do best, conflating things to confuse yourselves into believing things don't add up.

The phone smashed and discarded by WP's friend and presented as evidence is obviously an iPhone4, as can be clearly be seen in the photos in post #330

AleG - could you please confirm for me whether you are referring to yourself in your post where it reads

'my note here'.

"Apart from this, the Plaintiff also has circumstantial witnesses to the aftermath of the crime, namely Mr Aung Li Zaw or Ren Ren and Mr Ni Ni Aung, friends of the Second Defendant who have testified that the Second Defendant was the one to bring the exhibited (my note here: exhibited phone refers to the one presented as evidence, the one recovered by the police behind their lodgings) mobile phone which was the same brand and model as that of the First Deceased on the 15 September 2014 which was the day that the crime took place and only a few hours after the incident.

I added that note, because it seems that even the most obvious things need to be explained in detail.

[AleG]

2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware

That phone is not broken, you are shameless...

[catsanddogs]

2.55 you will see the police showing the broken phone to Chris Ware

What'whos broken phone is that then being shown to Ware over 2 weeks before the broken one was found in the undergrowth?

[catsanddogs]

This video shows damaged iPhones a6 6.36

Thanks. These are the phones found at the accommodation of the original three migrants who were suspects I believe.